By the Court.—We have heard Dr. L. P. Mishra and Sri Manish Kumar learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri R.C. Saxena learned counsel appearing for the respondent, both on the merits of the special appeal as also on the application moved by the appellants seeking amendment in the array of appellants.

2. We will first take up the issue relating to the amendment application. This special appeal seeks to challenge an order/judgment dated 23.10.2017 passed by Hon. the Contempt Judge in Contempt Petition No. 1449 of 2017 which has been filed by the respondent alleging disobedience, defiance and non-compliance of an order dated 18.11.2016 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 27467(S/S) of 2016 as affirmed vide another order dated 13.4.2017 passed in the same writ petition, whereby it was provided that till further orders of this Court, status quo existing prior to 9.10.2016 shall be maintained.

3. In this special appeal, there are two appellants, (i) Vice-Chancellor, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University and (ii) Deputy Registrar, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow. An application for amendment has been moved by the appellants seeking leave of the Court to permit the appellants to add the following two as appellants :

(i) Professor Vinay Kumar Pathak, Vice-Chancellor, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow; and

(ii) A.K. Shukla, Deputy Registrar, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow.

4. The appellants in the affidavit filed in support of application for amendment have stated that due to inadvertent mistake which is typographical in nature, in the array of appellants, the appellants have been arrayed by their designation/post and their names have been left to be incorporated.

5. In this background it has been prayed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the aforesaid typographical inadvertent mistake may be permitted to be corrected and accordingly the appellants may be permitted to incorporate the amendments sought through the application.

6. Opposing strongly the prayer made by the appellants in the amendment application, it has been canvassed by Sri R.C. Saxena the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the contempt petition was filed by the respondent arraying the appellants by their names and not by their designation. He has thus, submitted that the appellants in the contempt petition are parties by name and not by designation and hence, the special appeal filed by the appellants arraying themselves by designation, itself would not be maintainable and accordingly permitting the amendment sought will amount to filling up the lacunae to overcome the ground raised by the respondent regarding maintainability of the appeal and hence, the application for amendment deserves rejection. He has also stated that since by the order under appeal dated 23.10.2017, the appellant No. 1, neither by name nor in his official capacity, can be said to be a person aggrieved and it is only the appellant No. 2-A.K. Shukla, that too, in his personal capacity, who can be said to be aggrieved in view of the order dated 2.8.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Contempt Judge, hence, since the special appeal is not maintainable at the instance of appellant No. 1, his impleadment even by name as an appellant in the special appeal is uncalled for. For emphasizing this ground learned counsel representing the respondent, Sri R.C. Saxena has taken the Court to the order dated 2.8.2017 passed in Contempt Petition No. 1449 of 2017 whereby notices were issued only to respondent No. 2 therein (appellant No. 2 herein) fixing 6.9.2017 and it was directed that it is the respondent No. 2 who shall appear in person before this Court to show-cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act may not be initiated against him for willful disobedience of the order dated 18.11.2016 passed by the writ Court. Sri Saxena has thus, submitted that if anyone can be sa